Personalized Group Itinerary Recommendation using a Knowledge-based Evolutionary Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of recommending a group itinerary is considered to be NP-hard and can be defined as an optimization problem. The goal is to recommend the best series of points of interest (POIs) to a group of people who are visiting a destination based on their preferences and past experiences. This paper proposes an evolutionary approach based on cultural algorithms to address this problem. Our objective is to maximize the group's satisfaction by recommending an itinerary comprised of the optimal series of visiting POIs, considering the interests of all members, total travel time, and visit duration while minimizing the travel costs within their assigned budget. The proposed algorithm uses historical and normative knowledge to create a belief space used later to guide the search direction and decision-making. The belief space is a knowledge repository that tracks the evolution of decisions during the search process. We evaluated the performance of the proposed algorithm on a set of real-world datasets and compared that with state-of-the-art approaches. We also conducted non-parametric tests to analyze the results. Compared with other algorithms, the proposed approach is capable of recommending efficient and satisfactory itineraries to groups with diverse interests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it